Are you talking about the syllabus in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co., 1886? That was not written by a railway executive, but by a Supreme Court employee.
Mike Andrews wrote "Supreme Court employee", and NOT "supreme court justice". And, the person could have been BOTH a "railway executive", AND a "supreme court employee". Yes, it's a small point, but details DO matter, as does historical accuracy. Especially here, with this topic, IMHO....
Do you want your posts shared on social sites?
110%!
Are you talking about the syllabus in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co., 1886? That was not written by a railway executive, but by a Supreme Court employee.
I hope "Explorer" clarifies this important detail....
The detail is not important. This person is obfuscation, intentionally or not. The answer is the person was both an executive and employee.
Either way it wasn't a supreme court justice.
Mike Andrews wrote "Supreme Court employee", and NOT "supreme court justice". And, the person could have been BOTH a "railway executive", AND a "supreme court employee". Yes, it's a small point, but details DO matter, as does historical accuracy. Especially here, with this topic, IMHO....
Lol
I